Ex Parte Short

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2014

11474849 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GREGORY SHORT
____________________

Appeal 2012-000733
Application 11/474,849
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gregory Short (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9–24, and 26–34. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-000733
Application 11/474,849

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claims 1, 21, and 34 are pending and rejected, with
illustrative claim 1 being reproduced below.
1. A method of providing a visualization of a scene
corresponding to game play, comprising:
a. receiving at a visualization server information about
the scene corresponding to game play at a client computer;
b. receiving additional information about the scene at the
visualization server; and
c. constructing a visualization at the visualization server
based on the scene, the constructing based at least in part on the
received information and the received additional information,
wherein the received additional information corresponds to
higher resolution views of characters or scenery than that
displayed at the client.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:

Sawano US 6,285,381 B1 Sep. 4, 2001
Nojiri US 6,780,113 B2 August 24, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 9–13, 16, 17, 20–24, 26, 29, 30, 33, and 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Sawano. Ans. 4.
Claims 14, 15, 18, 19, 27, 28, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sawano and Nojiri. Ans. 6.

OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 21 each recite that “the received additional
information corresponds to higher resolution views of characters or scenery
Appeal 2012-000733
Application 11/474,849

3
than that displayed at the client.” Claim 34 recites “replacing a portion of
the information about a scene with a higher resolution version than that
displayed at the client.” The Examiner finds that Sawano teaches, among
other things, “the received additional information includes information
representing at least one view of a character or scenery (Col. 8, Lines 54 -
Col. 9, Line 10) (Fig. 14–17) having a higher resolution than that typically
displayed at the client (Col. 8, Line 54 - Col. 9, Line 10 ).” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues, among other things, that Sawano fails to disclose
that the additional information corresponds to “a higher resolution view than
that displayed at the client, whether of characters, scenery, both, or any other
aspect of the scene,” because Sawano is creating an avatar character in a
video game, rather than increasing the resolution of characters or scenery.
App. Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that Sawano teaches an embodiment in which
a user can resize the cutout image, which would manipulate pixel
dimensions. Ans. 9 (citing Sawano, col. 8, l. 54 – col. 9, l. 10). According
to the Examiner, a “smaller sized image would produce a higher resolution
image, i.e., the user could resize the cutout image to produce a higher
resolution view [so that] the additional information would ‘correspond’ to
the higher resolution view.” Id.
Appellant argues that “Sawano merely discloses altering the
dimensions of the displayed box as a way to select the cutout area,” which
“merely result[s] in a different looking cutout image because the same
includes more or less of the original image” and not a differing resolution.
Reply Br. 6–7. The cited disclosure of Sawano supports Appellant’s
argument. Sawano only teaches that resizing the “displayed box” changes
Appeal 2012-000733
Application 11/474,849

4
the area of the “captured image” that is to be included in the “cutout area”
before the cutout image is confirmed at step S6. See Sawano, col. 8, l. 63 –
col. 9, l. 10. Appellant also argues that, even if Sawano taught resizing of
the cutout image, Sawano’s resizing of the image provides no additional
information about image resolution. Reply Br 7.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Sawano
teaches an embodiment in which a user can resize the cutout image to
manipulate pixel dimensions (Ans. 9), and that Sawano therefore does not
teach additional information corresponding to “higher resolution views of
characters or scenery than that displayed at the client” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 21, or “replacing a portion of the information
about a scene with a higher resolution version than that displayed at the
client” as recited in independent claim 34. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1–7, 9–13, 16, 17, 20–24, 26, 29, 30, 33, and 34 under 35
U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Sawano.
The Examiner does not find or conclude that Nojiri cures the
deficiencies of Sawano. We therefore additionally do not sustain the
rejection of claims 14, 15, 18, 19, 27, 28, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sawano and Nojiri.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1–7, 9–13, 16, 17, 20–24, 26,
29, 30, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Sawano.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 14, 15, 18, 19, 27, 28, 31, and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sawano and Nojiri.

REVERSED
Klh